DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Stat of claims: claims 1-34 are pending below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 4th 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 4th 2026 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's RCE with a submitted IDS have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The RCE included an IDS that with review found teaching of the claim amendments. IDS submitted listed Maurer (US 8,615,142) which teaches the claims submitted on 3/16/2026. The combine teaching of over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, submitted by IDS) teaches the instant invention below. Please see Office Action below for further detail..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 20-21, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, submitted by IDS).
Claim 1, similar claim 20:
Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) teaches the following subject matter:
A method (0009 teach) for sharpening a image comprising:
receiving the image (figure 1 and 0024 teaches imaging object such as animal, plants and mammals, structure); and generating a sharpened image from the image using at least (0003-0005 detail sharpening captured images with levels, first, second, third…etc, by means of slops or steps):
a first sharpening function for at least some areas of local contrast magnitude in the medical image that are below a first local contrast magnitude threshold for suppressing sharpening of noise-based contrast (figure 6-7; figure 6 and paragraph 0081-0083 teaches sharpening above with adjusting normalized intensity values with curve slopes, range of the slopes, where range are the threshold from one intensity values to another; figure 7 and 0084 detail using a table with adjusting intensity values (sharpening) with ranges such as up to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6…etc with adjustment factor such as a= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6; 0051-0052 and 0076 addresses sharpening applied areas with different parameter a for less noise for pixel processed),
a second sharpening function for at least some areas of local contrast magnitude in the medical image that are between the first local contrast magnitude threshold and a second local contrast magnitude threshold (above teaches figures 6-7 and paragraph 0081-883 and 0084 detail the different sharpening slopes for each selected area, where one ordinary skill in the art can review the figures 6 or figure 7 to select the adjusting intensity slope of figure 6 or adjust intensity value of figure 7 to meet this requirement), and
a third sharpening function for at least some areas of local contrast magnitude in the medical image that are above the second local contrast magnitude threshold for attenuating sharpening relative to the second sharpening function (above teaches figures 6-7 and paragraph 0081-883 and 0084 detail the different sharpening slopes for each selected area, where one ordinary skill in the art can review the figures 6 or figure 7 to select the adjusting intensity slope of figure 6 or adjust intensity value of figure 7 to meet this requirement; 0029 address control system 22 to adjust the level of blur (attenuating) function, where 0037-0038 teaches the such blurring application to pixel for different levels of contrast correction for slopes or step-wise adjustment taught above as further detail in figure 4 and 0048).
Tezaur et al teaches all the subject matter: receiving the image; generating a sharpened image from the image using at least, but do not teach the following: receiving the medical image; generating a sharpened medical image from the medical image using at least.
Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) teaches the following subject matter: receiving the medical image; generating a sharpened medical image from the medical image using at least (0002 teaches medical imaging using ultrasonic diagnostic device, an X-ray device, a CT device and an MRI diagnostic device, where 0013 detail changing the brightness values in the medical image to discontinue strange pattern occurring by using different filters (different sharpening filters)).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al are both in the field of image analysis especially switching to appropriate sharpening using brightness values structure elements of interest such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al by Bai et al such would enhance and smooth for noise removal of the photography image and in order to discontinue strange pattern as disclosed by Bai et al in 0013.
Tezaur et al and Bai et al teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Maurer (US 8,615,142):
determining local contrast magnitudes based on the medical image; determining areas of the medical image for which the local contrast magnitudes are below a first local contrast magnitude threshold; determining areas of the medical image for which the local contrast magnitudes are between the first local contrast magnitude threshold and a second local contrast magnitude threshold; determining areas of the medical image for which the local contrast magnitudes are above the second local contrast magnitude threshold (column 2 lines 55-67 detail ranges of contrast (contrast threshold) that is mapped, where the range is threshold and anything values outside is seen as above or below; claims 15 and 22 detail the local contrast; column 1 lines 15-27 detail application to medical images).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer are in the field of image analysis especially switching to appropriate sharpening using brightness values structure elements of interest such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al by Maurer where local enhancement will improve appearance of digital images as disclosed by Maurer in column 1 lines 5-10.
Claim 2, similar claim 21:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third sharpening functions are used for sharpening a luminance channel of the medical image (0089 detail the pixel intensity adjustment on each channel with YCbCr color space, and only the Y channel (which represents image luminance) can be sharpened).
Claim 6, similar claim 25:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first sharpening function, the second sharpening function, and the third sharpening function comprises a user defined sharpening factor (above teaches different sharpening (first, second, third…etc), where paragraph 0031 further detail control system 22 where user control the function to activate the sharpening and blurring processes).
Claim 7, similar claim 26:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein each of the first sharpening function, the second sharpening function, and the third sharpening function comprises the user defined sharpening factor (above teaches different sharpening (first, second, third…etc), where paragraph 0031 further detail control system 22 where user control the function to activate the sharpening and blurring processes).
Claim 8, similar claim 27:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first sharpening function comprises a gain factor that corresponds to gain applied for generating the medical image (above teaches different sharpening (first, second, third…etc), where 0077 teaches setting a desirable (user defined) to obtain gain factor back to the original sharpened profile.).
Claim 9, similar claim 28:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sharpened medical image is generated using a fourth sharpening function for areas of local contrast magnitude that are above a third local contrast magnitude threshold that is higher than the second local contrast magnitude threshold (above teaches figures 6-7 and paragraph 0081-883 and 0084 detail the different sharpening slopes for each selected area, where one ordinary skill in the art can review the figures 6 or figure 7 to select the adjusting intensity slope of figure 6 or adjust intensity value of figure 7 to meet this requirement for the fourth sharpening function).
Claims 3-5 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim et al (US 2016/0037061).
Claim 3, similar claim 22:
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer teach teaches all the subject matter above, but do not teach the following:
The method of claim 1, wherein the local contrast magnitude comprises an absolute value of a difference between a luminance and a blurred luminance.
Lim et al (US 2016/0037061) teaches the following subject matter: The method of claim 1, wherein the local contrast magnitude comprises an absolute value of a difference between a luminance and a blurred luminance (0082 teaches consideration of absolute difference between brightness (luminance) and blurred of pixel values; 0045 detail such application to local mapping sharpening of luma, with further use of confidence threshold/value for such adjustment as disclosed in 0080 and 0083).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer and Lim et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially sharpening of local regions of an image using confident values/threshold in regard of brightness/luminance/luma values such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer by Lim et al regarding using difference between luminance and blurred luminance would provide the best match with confident regarding horizontal shift for adjustment as disclosed by Lim et al in 0082-0083.
Claim 4, similar claim 23:
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer teach teaches all the subject matter above, but do not teach the following: The method of claim 1, wherein the second sharpening function is a linear function.
Lim et al (US 2016/0037061) teaches the following subject matter: The method of claim 1, wherein the second sharpening function is a linear function (0043 detail processing using linearization with spatial filter to reduce noise in image data with similar brightness. One ordinary skill in the art will select that menu of linear and non-linear slope/step-wise brightness correction to meet this claim requirement).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer and Lim et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially sharpening of local regions of an image using confident values/threshold in regard of brightness/luminance/luma values such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer by Lim et al regarding linearization to reduce noise in image data during brightness processing as disclosed by Lim et al in 0043.
Claim 5, similar claim 24:
Lim et al further teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein the first and third sharpening functions are non-linear functions (0043 detail mapping of non-linear image data during brightness processing. One ordinary skill in the art will select that menu of linear and non-linear slope/step-wise brightness correction to meet this claim requirement).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RADUCAN et al (US 2017/0186138).
Claim 10:
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer teach teaches all the subject matter and medical instruments (0024-0025 teaches imaging for animal and mammal structures, such as hollow body and cavities detail in 0027-0028) above, but do not teach the following: The method of claim 1, wherein the second local contrast magnitude threshold is associated with attenuating sharpening of at least one of specular reflections.
RADUCAN et al (US 2017/0186138) teaches the following subject matter: The method of claim 1, wherein the second local contrast magnitude threshold is associated with attenuating sharpening of at least one of specular reflections (0041-0045 detail imaging of iris regions with consideration of local luminance range (threshold) with consideration of specular reflection of overexposed image regions to further sharpen/blur regions to recognizable iris pattern).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer and RADUCAN et al are both in image analysis, especially imaging processing of blody regarding sharpening of local regions of an image in regard of brightness/luminance/luma values such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer by RADUCAN et al in addressing specular reflection of overexposed image regions in sharpen/blur regions to recognizable pattern as disclosed by RADUCAN et al in paragraph 0041-0045, specifically 0045.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TODA et al (US 2015/0304524).
Claim 11:
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer teach teaches all the subject matter above The method of claim 1, comprising, for a respective pixel of the medical image: computing a sharpening value based on a local contrast associated with the respective pixel and the first, second, or third sharpening function (0003-0005 detail sharpening captured images with levels, first, second, third…etc, by means of slops or steps).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer do not teach the following: The method of claim 1, comprising, for a respective pixel of the medical image: in accordance with the local contrast being positive, using the sharpening value to increase a brightness value for the respective pixel by a first amount; and in accordance with the local contrast being negative, using the sharpening value to decrease the brightness value for the respective pixel by a second amount that is less than the first amount would have been had the local contrast been positive
TODA et al (US 2015/0304524) teaches the following subject matter: The method of claim 1, comprising, for a respective pixel of the medical image: in accordance with the local contrast being positive, using the sharpening value to increase a brightness value for the respective pixel by a first amount; and in accordance with the local contrast being negative, using the sharpening value to decrease the brightness value for the respective pixel by a second amount that is less than the first amount would have been had the local contrast been positive (0061-0062, where 0062 detail ratio of positive to increase brightness, and brightness decrease to lower (decrease), and the amounts are detail in 0061 where one ordinary skill in the art will select that is proper to address the needs/claims requirement. ).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer and TODA et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially sharpness correction processing in image using brightness of local contrast such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Maurer by TODA et al regarding positive and negative to increase or decrease brightness values such correction processing would provide noise suppression in the respected local contrast to restore input image as disclosed by TODA et al in 0043.
Claims 12 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and further in view of TODA et al (US 2015/0304524) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, submitted IDS).
Claim 12, similar claim 29:
Tezaur et al teaches the following subject matter:
A method (0009) for sharpening a medical image comprising:
receiving the image (figure 1 and 0024 teaches imaging object such as animal, plants and mammals, structure); and generating a sharpened image, wherein generating the sharpened image comprises, for each pixel of the image (0003-0005 detail sharpening captured images with levels, first, second, third…etc, by means of slops or steps);
computing a sharpening value for the respective pixel based on a local contrast associated with the respective pixel and at least one sharpening function (figure 6-7; figure 6 and paragraph 0081-0083 teaches sharpening above with adjusting normalized intensity values with curve slopes, range of the slopes, where range are the threshold from one intensity values to another; figure 7 and 0084 detail using a table with adjusting intensity values (sharpening) with ranges such as up to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6…etc with adjustment factor such as a= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6; 0051-0052 and 0076 addresses sharpening applied areas with different parameter a for less noise for pixel processed).
Tezaur et al do not teach the following: medical image.
Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) receiving the medical image; generating a sharpened medical image from the medical image using at least (0002 teaches medical imaging using ultrasonic diagnostic device, an X-ray device, a CT device and an MRI diagnostic device, where 0013 detail changing the brightness values in the medical image to discontinue strange pattern occurring by using different filters (different sharpening filters)).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al are both in the field of image analysis especially switching to appropriate sharpening using brightness values structure elements of interest such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al by Bai et al such would enhance and smooth for noise removal of the photography image and in order to discontinue strange pattern as disclosed by Bai et al in 0013.
Tezaur et al and Bai et al teaches all the subject matter above but do not teach the following: in accordance with the local contrast being positive, using the sharpening value for the respective pixel to increase a brightness value for the respective pixel by a first amount, and in accordance with the local contrast being negative, using the sharpening value for the respective pixel to decrease the brightness value for the respective pixel by a second amount that is less than the first amount would have been had the local contrast been positive.
TODA et al (US 2015/0304524) teaches the following subject matter: in accordance with the local contrast being positive, using the sharpening value for the respective pixel to increase a brightness value for the respective pixel by a first amount, and in accordance with the local contrast being negative, using the sharpening value for the respective pixel to decrease the brightness value for the respective pixel by a second amount that is less than the first amount would have been had the local contrast been positive (0061-0062, where 0062 detail ratio of positive to increase brightness, and brightness decrease to lower (decrease), and the amounts are detail in 0061 where one ordinary skill in the art will select that is proper to address the needs/claims requirement. ).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and TODA et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially sharpness correction processing in image using brightness of local contrast such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al by TODA et al regarding positive and negative to increase or decrease brightness values such correction processing would provide noise suppression in the respected local contrast to restore input image as disclosed by TODA et al in 0043.
Tezaur et al and Bai et al by TODA et al teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Maurer (US 8,615,142, IDS):
determining local contrasts based on the medical image threshold (column 2 lines 55-67 detail ranges of contrast (contrast threshold) that is mapped, where the range is threshold and anything values outside is seen as above or below; claims 15 and 22 detail the local contrast; column 1 lines 15-27 detail application to medical images).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and TODA et al and Maurer are in the field of image analysis especially switching to appropriate sharpening using brightness values structure elements of interest such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al and TODA et al by Maurer where local enhancement will improve appearance of digital images as disclosed by Maurer in column 1 lines 5-10.
Claims 13-17 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezaur et al (US 2012/0308154) in view of Bai et al (US 2011/0125030) and Maurer (US 8,615,142, IDS) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lim et al (US 2016/0037061).
Claim 13, similar claim 30:
Tezaur et al and Bai et al teach teaches all the subject matter above, but do not teach the following:
The method of claim 12, wherein the local contrast associated with the respective pixel comprises a signed difference between a luminance and a blurred luminance.
Lim et al (US 2016/0037061) teaches the following subject matter: The method of claim 1, wherein the local contrast magnitude comprises an absolute value of a difference between a luminance and a blurred luminance (0082 teaches consideration of absolute difference between brightness (luminance) and blurred of pixel values; 0045 detail such application to local mapping sharpening of luma, with further use of confidence threshold/value for such adjustment as disclosed in 0080 and 0083).
Tezaur et al and Bai et al and Lim et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially sharpening of local regions of an image using confident values/threshold in regard of brightness/luminance/luma values such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Tezaur et al and Bai et al by Lim et al regarding using difference between luminance and blurred luminance would provide the best match with confident regarding horizontal shift for adjustment as disclosed by Lim et al in 0082-0083.
Claim 14, similar claim 31:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein the at least one sharpening function comprises multiple sharpening functions, each used for a different range of local contrasts (figure 6-7; figure 6 and paragraph 0081-0083 teaches sharpening above with adjusting normalized intensity values with curve slopes, range of the slopes, where range are the threshold from one intensity values to another; figure 7 and 0084 detail using a table with adjusting intensity values (sharpening) with ranges such as up to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6…etc with adjustment factor such as a= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6; 0051-0052 and 0076 addresses sharpening applied areas with different parameter a for less noise for pixel processed).
Claim 15, similar claim 32:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein the brightness value is a brightness value for a luminance channel of the medical image (0089 detail the pixel intensity adjustment on each channel with YCbCr color space, and only the Y channel (which represents image luminance) can be sharpened) and Bai et al above teaches medical images.
Claim 16, similar claim 33:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein the first amount is defined by a first function and the second amount is defined by a second function that is different than and proportional to the first function (figure 6-7; figure 6 and paragraph 0081-0083 teaches sharpening above with adjusting normalized intensity values with curve slopes, range of the slopes, where range are the threshold from one intensity values to another; figure 7 and 0084 detail using a table with adjusting intensity values (sharpening) with ranges such as up to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6…etc with adjustment factor such as a= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6. One ordinary skill in the art with different sharpening functions would adjust the amount to the sharpening function selected for local processing).
Claim 17, similar claim 34:
Tezaur et al teach:
The method of claim 16, wherein the second amount is proportional to the local contrast and to the original brightness value for the respective pixel (figure 6-7; figure 6 and paragraph 0081-0083 teaches sharpening above with adjusting normalized intensity values with curve slopes, range of the slopes, where range are the threshold from one intensity values to another; figure 7 and 0084 detail using a table with adjusting intensity values (sharpening) with ranges such as up to 0.2, 0.4, 0.6…etc with adjustment factor such as a= 1.2, 1.4, 1.6. One ordinary skill in the art with different sharpening functions would adjust the amount to the sharpening function selected for local processing).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18, and dependent claims 19, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. At the time of the examination unable to find teaching of claim 18 regarding sharpening of the pixel that is associated with negative local contrast by the requirements of both quotient of: (a) the square of a corresponding brightness value of the medical image, and (b) a difference between the corresponding brightness value of the medical image and the sharpening value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gohshi (US 2015/0146995) teaches IMAGE ENHANCEMENT APPARATUS AND IMAGE ENHANCEMENT METHOD – 0012, 0016, 0044, 0068 teaches sharpening input image with first, second and third adjustments, detail use of linear and nonlinear functions on local regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights